- The UK has sovereignty over them.
- Issue phrased: Does the UK or FR have sovereignty? So as to preclude finding of res nullius.
- Ct looks at how to establish title:
- Showing of control.
- Proximity to a country
- Physical possession.
- The evidence here is amorphous. Ct decided it the way it did probably b/c of the framing of the issue. Ct looked to historical factors and looked at the different/control possession showings the UK had been doing.
- When you add all this together, ct somehow means the UK has it.
- There were four choices in this case: UK had sovereignty; Fr had sovereignty; Res nullius; Condominium (both Fr and UK).
- Might have been better to send to arbitration since issues weren’t so clear.
- Some have suggested this case went to ct due to (1) fishing and (2) oil/gas—worry of exploitation. When you have a sensitive issue—better to go to the prestige of the ICJ.
- Ct says self-determination isn’t possible—except for former colonies.
- Problem w/ starting w/ history—b/c always someone declares that they were there first. (Yet ct started w/ history here!) This case is more historical—no real legal issues here.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Minquiers and Ecrehos Case brief
Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (France and the UK at the ICJ 1953, p. 262)
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...